using your PhD title

UCDVet

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Not funny.

Edit: I apologise, I thought you were denigrating these until I realised you yourself have a PhD. I take it back.

Ahhh - the old, 'I can tell racist jokes because I'm one of them' thing?

Someone shouldn't need to have a PhD to tell a joke.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

That's debatable. Doctors work incredibly hard to get qualifed. The subject matter of the degree isn't harder than others, it's just the sheer volume of it. It's very hard going. Friends of mine who did science degrees then grad med attest to this. Then, once you get your degree, you have a stint as a junior doctor for a few years. Low enough pay for maybe 60+ hours a week and very little sleep. We know that they are clinicians not doctors, but I certainly wouldn't be questioning work ethic.

I didn't compare a B.Sc to a doctorate of medicine I compared a PhD plus a degree to a doctorate of medicine. Often scientists who do grad medicine leave after third year while avoiding the hardest final year. I give biochemistry tutorials to med students and a lot fo them seem to find the material there very hard. There is doubtlessly more course work in medicine but the course material is more complex in subjects like biochemistry IMO.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is doubtlessly more course work in medicine but the course material is more complex in subjects like biochemistry IMO.

I know that, I did a science degree and I was including degree + Phd in my comparison. But with a science degree you're focusing on one area of science when you specialise, whereas medical students have to study an incredibly broad area. Overall, in addition to learning procedures and through numerous different kinds of placements and labs, it is still more intense than a science degree and goes on for longer too. Then after that, you have your junior doctor stint which takes a huge amount of stamina. As for leaving after third year of the science degree. Nobody I know did that, everyone went to get their honours degree before doing medicine.

They are different, but undergrad + Phd more work than medical degree + junior doctor stint? Nah. About the same, I'd say. I'd actually give medicine the edge workwise because of the far more intense undergrad.

Asarlai

Jawgap wrote: »

A better metric would be to compare how many start a PhD versus how many get one.

Using that metric, the general figure quoted in the US is 50%.

http://chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045/

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I know that, I did a science degree and I was including degree + Phd in my comparison. But with a science degree you're focusing on one area of science when you specialise, whereas medical students have to study an incredibly broad area. Overall, in addition to learning procedures and through numerous different kinds of placements and labs, it is still more intense than a science degree and goes on for longer too. Then after that, you have your junior doctor stint which takes a huge amount of stamina.

They are different, but undergrad + Phd more work than medical degree + junior doctor stint? Nah. About the same, I'd say. I'd actually give medicine the edge workwise because of the far more intense undergrad.

Well we'll agree to disagree so Considering the amount of medicine students who struggle at biochemistry I would hesitate to think that there are a lot who could handle a PhD. Saying that comparing the two are apples and oranges. Scientists and clinicians have and require completely different skill sets. All in all I've published and made valuable contributions to research so think I'm just as entitled to use the title Dr. as a clinician.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well we'll agree to disagree so Considering the amount of medicine students who struggle at biochemistry I would hesitate to think that there are a lot who could handle a PhD. Saying that comparing the two are apples and oranges. Scientists and clinicians have and require completely different skill sets. All in all I've published and made valuable contributions to research so think I'm just as entitled to use the title Dr. as a clinician.

You're drawing conclusions about the overall difficulty of medicine as a degree based on one module that students take in their first year of the course and never again? That's totally flawed logic. We all know biochemistry is a hard etc... I'm a medical student and I can say that while it wasn't the easiest module I did, it's by no means the most difficult or taxing either and I'm not even finished my undergraduate yet. No one is saying you're not allowed to use the Dr. title, the original reply was because you said you felt you earned it more than medical doctors.

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

You're drawing conclusions about the overall difficulty of medicine as a degree based on one module that students take in their first year of the course and never again? That's totally flawed logic. We all know biochemistry is a hard etc... I'm a medical student and I can say that while it wasn't the easiest module I did, it's by no means the most difficult or taxing either and I'm not even finished my undergraduate yet. No one is saying you're not allowed to use the Dr. title, the original reply was because you said you felt you earned it more than medical doctors.

I defiantly think we earned it as much as a clinician. I'm responding too the posters here (and some clinicians) who seem to think they earned to right to use doctor more than someone who did a 4 year biochemistry degree, and a 4 yea biochemistry PhD.

I think this could be put down to an old grudge in fairness. There is sometimes a bit of hostility between the biochemists and clinicians in terms of afforded respect. A lot of headlines in the media seem to operate by the mantra "doctors cure (insert disease here)" paying little respect to the countless decades some scientists might have spent researching the disease.

I'm not having a go at clinicians I'm just giving a bit of background into the history between the two and why biochemists are particularly demanding of correct use of titles.

riffmongous

But does a clinician actually contribute anything new?

steddyeddy

riffmongous wrote: »

But does a clinician actually contribute anything new?

They do a job I couldn't do. I'm not taking away from that I'm just saying a clinician is not the pinnacle of the title "Dr." To say that is taking away from all the great work that researchers do around the world.

Put it this way. Professor Tim Hunt discovered cyclin dependent kinases. They regulate the cell cycle, ie they regulate the division of one cell into two. Cancerous cells divide uncontrollably so this research is essential in understanding how cancer operates. Now according to some posters here he isn't a real Dr. because he's not a clinician. Even though his research could potentially save millions.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

They do a job I couldn't do. I'm not taking away from that I'm just saying a clinician is not the pinnacle of the title "Dr." To say that is taking away from all the great work that researchers do around the world.

Put it this way. Professor Tim Hunt discovered cyclin dependent kinases. They regulate the cell cycle, ie they regulate the division of one cell into two. Cancerous cells divide uncontrollably so this research is essential in understanding how cancer operates. Now according to some posters here he isn't a real Dr. because he's not a clinician. Even though his research could potentially save millions.

In fairness I don't see very many posters actually saying that. The wider public know very little about academic hierarchy and structure. I still get asked by my family if I'll be a fully qualified surgeon as soon as I graduate. People don't know anything about the training we go through or even the difference between a research based and a clinical doctorate. People don't even know the difference between level 7 and level 8 degrees, or between certain courses i.e, pharmacology and pharmacy. It's probably not a case of intentional offence but more that people just don't understand.

The title 'Dr' was adopted by physicians upon the advent of scientific based medicine a few hundred years to lend more credulity to the profession when they were trying to get away from the 'witchier' aspects of their jobs. Surgeons are traditionally addressed as Mr/Ms because they were originally barbers and not doctors as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

faceman

The closest I'll come to having a PhD is a HD telly in 1080P

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well we'll agree to disagree so Considering the amount of medicine students who struggle at biochemistry I would hesitate to think that there are a lot who could handle a PhD. Saying that comparing the two are apples and oranges. Scientists and clinicians have and require completely different skill sets. All in all I've published and made valuable contributions to research so think I'm just as entitled to use the title Dr. as a clinician.

I know they are different skillsets. That doesn't mean PhDs are overall more work, it's just different work.

Having known lots of people who have done PhDs, some have stunned me with how mediocre they are, brains-wise. PhDs are often more about being able to slog than anything else. People are always impressed with a science degree. As someone who has a good science degree, this bemuses me. You don't need to be that smart to get one, it's greatly overstated how hard it is, IMO. You can have a science head and be, well, a bit thick in other areas.

Using Dr. outside of professional spheres is pompous for anyone, doctor or clinician.

Greenmachine

Was somehow registered on a flight as Dr. Greenmachine. My original booking was under the more conventional Mr. Pretty glad there was no call for a Dr. on board.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Now according to some posters here he isn't a real Dr. because he's not a clinician.

Who has actually said anything like that in this thread?

EoghanIRL

riffmongous wrote: »

But does a clinician actually contribute anything new?

Pioneering new surgical techniques ?

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Who has actually said anything like that in this thread?

Originally Posted by CosmoCramer
Even though they are not real docs?

On top of that one or two consultants our group collaborated with seem to think they have a higher ranking than a scientist for some reason.

steddyeddy

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Pioneering new surgical techniques ?

Some do but in fairness it's not their job to come up with anything new for the most part. They have many tried and tested methods of treating patients available to them now. If one started doing something different then it wouldn't work as well.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

On top of that one or two consultants our group collaborated with seem to think they have a higher ranking than a scientist for some reason.

So, one person in the thread?

Why do you care who people consider higher in ranking?

I don't think personally solicitors and barristers deserve the high social status they enjoy, but I'm not going to get too excited about it. Some jobs are considered high status, that's just how it is.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

So, one person in the thread?

Why do you care who people consider higher in ranking?

I don't think personally solicitors and barristers deserve the high social status they enjoy, but I'm not going to get too excited about it. Some jobs are considered high status, that's just how it is.

Well it affects me personally because I work alongside them sometimes and they ask to be put on papers (in particular order) even if they do little or no work. It's not a matter of ranking it's the fact they (some of them) treat other contributors to medicine with little respect.

HIB

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I know they are different skillsets. That doesn't mean PhDs are overall more work, it's just different work.

Having known lots of people who have done PhDs, some have stunned me with how mediocre they are, brains-wise. PhDs are often more about being able to slog than anything else. People are always impressed with a science degree. As someone who has a good science degree, this bemuses me. You don't need to be that smart to get one, it's greatly overstated how hard it is, IMO. You can have a science head and be, well, a bit thick in other areas.

Using Dr. outside of professional spheres is pompous for anyone, doctor or clinician.

You're right. Phds really are about hard work, tenacity, self belief and mental toughness. With the latter probably being the most vital element.
All really admirable qualities, qualities desired by employers, and qualities likely to get you wherever it is you aim to go in life.
Innate ability or 'brains' - not so important for earning a PhD, and not so important in life generally I think.

Kind of like that line in the fairytale of new york - 'I could have been someone. Well, so could anyone!'

Really aware we've wandered off topic here btw!!!

TheSheriff

Yeah its become the battle of the PhDs versus medics - who deserves what title.

Round 99999999999

DeepSleeper

DeepSleeper wrote: »

The degree (PhD or DL, DLitt etc.) leads to a change in title (Mr / Ms becomes Dr).

In daily life, I'm generally known as 'Deep Sleeper' like anyone else, but the correct form of address (if one cares about what is on the envelope, etc.) is Dr Deep Sleeper. It would be weird to refer to me as 'Dr Deep Sleeper' all the time - a guy without a PhD isn't referred to as 'Mr John Murphy' all the time, he's normally just John Murphy as I'm normally just 'Deep Sleeper'. However, if titles are required (for application forms as mentioned above, in formal address, etc.), then the correct title for him is Mr and the correct title for me is Dr - that isn't pretentious, it's just a fact! ..

We don't have a caste system enshrined in our laws afaik - there is no such thing as a correct title. All titles are an anachronism and should be abandoned (Mr Mrs Dr Ms etc.) Your academic qualification could still come after your own name should you wish.

riaganach

Reading this thread reminds me of something that happened me just after I got the PhD, after a 6-year long slog of the misery and cul-de-sacs.

I was walking home of a Sunday morning at 8am after a fair few pints and kipping on a sofa. There wasn't a sinner around. Then this car screeches to a halt and a guy rolls down the window and shouts over 'Are you a Doctor?'. Having recently graduated, sure I was only waiting for an opportunity to tell someone I was a Dr.

But I hesitated and said: 'No, no I'm not'. He then explained that he had a very sick kid in the back of the car who'd been up all night crying and he was looking for a doctor. He said he stopped because I looked like a doctor. He sped off... and I whispered after him... 'But I have a PhD in engineering'...

Ya can't make it up.

Donkey Oaty

Anyone remember this from the movie "What's Up, Doc?"?

Hugh: Don't touch me, I'm a doctor.
Judge Maxwell: Of what?
Hugh: Music.
Judge Maxwell: Can you fix a hi-fi?
Hugh: No, sir.
Judge Maxwell: Then shut up!

TheSheriff

One this I have noticed since finishing the undergrad is that this whole business of titles and what not is a complete rat race.

Sometimes I wish I had had the balls to see what would have happened if I didnt go to college in the first place.

Maybe Id be able to retire younger if I came up with some bright spark idea for a business

steddyeddy

TheSheriff wrote: »

Yeah its become the battle of the PhDs versus medics - who deserves what title.

Round 99999999999

Scientists VS medics ha ha

JaseBelleVie

I regret not getting my PhD, but I have a good job with the qualifications I currently have (Bachelor's and Masters' degrees). I had an opportunity to continue on and do a PhD, but a really good job opportunity opened up at the same time. I bit the bullet and took the job. I enjoy my work, and there is a real possibility of further promotion and so on. I have a good salary and really enjoy my work. But the chance to have a doctorate in my field and be able to be the ponce that so many here dislike would be class!

Also, just to be clear, I never put my qualifications after my name. Unless required by the company.

DeepSleeper

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't have a caste system enshrined in our laws afaik - there is no such thing as a correct title. All titles are an anachronism and should be abandoned (Mr Mrs Dr Ms etc.) Your academic qualification could still come after your own name should you wish.

No, we don't have a caste system, but that has nothing to do with a person's title. The two are quite distinct things so it doesn't help to confuse them.

Donkey Oaty

DeepSleeper wrote: »

No, we don't have a caste system, but that has nothing to do with a person's title. The two are quite distinct things so it doesn't help to confuse them.

Debatable.

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/3852878/the-academic-caste-system-prestige-hierarchies-in-phd-exchange-networks

DeepSleeper

DeepSleeper wrote: »

No, we don't have a caste system, but that has nothing to do with a person's title. The two are quite distinct things so it doesn't help to confuse them.

What is a correct title though? How is calling you Mr incorrect? When did you stop being called Master? Why is my elderly aunt a Ms and my wife who is almost fifty years younger a Mrs? They are all nonsense.